KDE4 = Vista

Sorry about the 95/98. In any case not a new invention for me, but I admit that doing this on a microprocessor system with floppy disks instead of on a more powerfull X-terminal that needed some computer room system behind it was maybe amazing.

In any case this is the Soapbox area and I feel free to rant a bit about features that are lost and new features that I do not see any use for. Like my panel is opaque, to make it more difficult for me to see what is in there >:( .

I am of course much biased that in my working live I was responsible for continuity. When we had to switch to a new OS level (and in the end you have to as we all know) I had to see that the end users productivity was impacted as less as possible. The engineer that runs some bridge stress program is not interested (to express his feelings lightly) in having the buttons he presses blindly, being moved to another place in his system/application. We even had to forbid the usage of software on the fact that it had no future because of it being based non standard underlying features and the like.

Use a different theme. Mine is too, yet I have no problems seeing what’s on it. I have a black opaque panel though

I am of course much biased that in my working live I was responsible for continuity. When we had to switch to a new OS level (and in the end you have to as we all know) I had to see that the end users productivity was impacted as less as possible. The engineer that runs some bridge stress program is not interested (to express his feelings lightly) in having the buttons he presses blindly, being moved to another place in his system/application. We even had to forbid the usage of software on the fact that it had no future because of it being based non standard underlying features and the like.

This is not just valid for one piece of software (be it a DE or not) but for most if not all software. Progress/development + time = change. If you can’t adapt to this (or your users) maybe you/they are in the wrong business. Almost nothing in life stays the same and some things change (much) faster than others do…

I know there are answers to most of these practical questions I have and will have, but it is the time consuming way I have to search, to ask and to struggle to get the (IMHO) most basic situations back to normal.

Again, see the examples above onn ‘non computer’ things. You are right, but only partly. Almost every thing you have to replace by a ne one is full of new features uyou did not ask for andd that would not be that bad if they were not switched on by default (and often on your first question how to switch them of they will stare blank at you).

But I agree this all is very personal. I can e.g. not undertand at all why, some days ago, there was somebody here on the forums who wanted his FF updated automaticaly to the newest version as soon as it showed up somewhere. Unbelievable to me. Such an attitude can only create chaos in your system, house and relations, But this is only my opinion.

In order to avoid the complaints of people who don’t like pre-configured options, no desktop environment will be included in future releases.

Also in the future no hardware drivers will be included other then basic componants this of course is to avoid the loading of modules that people don’t need.

In further attempts to reduce complaints, vi, vim, emacs, Midnight Commander, make, cmake…will no longer be included.

Of course in the spirit of open source they all can be freely downloaded via wget or lynx.

Remember the choice is yours now, no decisions will be made about any software or window manager preferences.

New users don’t panic when you first boot up, the black screen you see is by design.

rofl!!!

That’s a great one :D, were going back to erm the late90’s linux install’s yay!!

Being serious though, Linux is about “Choice” but the choice’s for a DE have to come with a base… A lot of people are complaining about KDE4 while I will admit it can take time to adjust to a new setup or to configure it how you want, that comes with Every OS available not one of them has the “perfect” setup as a base, not one of the DE’s will ever be able to achieve that as every user and the way they interact with the PC is different on a lot of levels.

KDE made a total re-write with KDE4, it’s not finished yet but comparing it to Vista is like comparing a Ferrari to a Reliant Robin…

Please for the sake of all that’s human, stop trying to compare KDE to Vista… Vista is a locked in pos that the only way you can change is by “hacking” system file’s to allow it, KDE is not locked in at all gives you the options to change every part of the structure (pretty much).

Most new things a person has to adopt to are time consuming and this is not just related to computers so your comment doesn’t make much of a point. When you’re in a new situation you don’t understand, you also try to find out facts/knowledge/etc about all that is involved in order to make sense out of it or make a better judgment… that takes time and work too coupled with adaptivity to new circumstances. When you install a brand new program, even if you are familiar with the field that program is targeted at, you also have to tinker a bit with it until you find your way around. This is no different

Again, see the examples above onn ‘non computer’ things. You are right, but only partly. Almost every thing you have to replace by a ne one is full of new features uyou did not ask for andd that would not be that bad if they were not switched on by default (and often on your first question how to switch them of they will stare blank at you).

But I agree this all is very personal. I can e.g. not undertand at all why, some days ago, there was somebody here on the forums who wanted his FF updated automaticaly to the newest version as soon as it showed up somewhere. Unbelievable to me. Such an attitude can only create chaos in your system, house and relations, But this is only my opinion.

You’re thinking locally and selfishly too… you did not ask for these things? Sure/maybe you didn’t, but I’m sure someone else has and to him/her they may be needed. From reading your posts, I conclude that you are asking for a system that is perfectly fitted to your own needs and habit. I have a small surprise for you… No such general purpose system exists, certainly not a general purpose OS like Linux distro. If you want everything the way you want it and only have the things you need and organized in a specific manner, then either start coding your system/OS yourself, or grab all that you need and build your own Henk Linux distro that fits you perfectly (there’s this thing called Linux from scratch which may help you). Fact is that there’s no way of developing a general purpose desktop environment targeted at millions of people, yet at the same time making it in a way that fits the needs/habits/etc of all those people on individual basis. That currently is just not possible :slight_smile:

Probably that person is concerned about features or about security flaws (s)he has to fixed right now. And for security fixes it is also good to have them fixed asap.

What I do not understand about your argumentation is the following:
As of 11.1 you where perfectly free to have a working system on KDE3.5. If you do not like change, why did you update anyway? You could have stayed with the previous kernel and with the previous desktop. But obviously there is something that pushed you to change.
If I well understand, as long as 4.x stays actual, it will not require much work between the releases. So the time you invest right now is an opportunity cost you should consider distributed on all the coming releases of 4. There is one rant I see already arriving like the spring, it is the change of mail and address-books to use from then on the “Akonadi” framework :. Guess the wolf howling if that is not well done…
All over all, you had the choice to do exactly like you proposed: not to update, not to move. So why did you ? :expressionless:

The computer industry practice, and Open Source exemplifies this, is to toss out the baby with the bath water. Microchip says this provides innovation and new features. Henk complains of losing features that are time tested and stable. If Win98 still worked on newer hardware/software and modern Internet services the operation of it served me just fine. I gave it up when it no longer could operate on new hardware/software and went to Linux because of the requirements that Windows imposed with XP to register each time you loaded XP on a computer. It was the “You do not own what you paid for” Microsoft philosophy that caused me to seek alternatives. The big reason why people did not leave XP for Vista is because the benefits did not out way the distractions that Vista created. (Second hand information gleaned from reading about Vistas problems).

For me, that is bit old for computers (I always felt growing up that they were glorified calculators and typewriters), new features that add to usage are great to have but why lose functionality in the process? Breaking things, like they did to go to the Kde 4 series, just to somehow have a better to maintain and code for system (I only have statements for this from those that may have a conflict of interest, I lack ability to confirm independently for myself) is not a great way to do things. I do think Distros should stop inventing the wheel and get down to just making better applications and stop changing the desktop environment. It begins to seem like the Detroit Auto days of the 50’s where cars competed on adding chrome and fins.

I hate having to go buy a hammer to find the type I like to be discontinued for a new one that sports a “improved interface”. And when roofing, if you need a hammer, the coil roofing nail gun just does not substitute for it.

I don’t just argue about innovation and new features, Matt. It’s more complex than that. Losing features is a subjective thing. To give you an example, me as an ex poweruser of KDE3, never even used 70% of all that was present in KDE3’s konqueror file manager. Some people who did use them of course complained some were removed in KDE4. People like me who never touched them or had a need for these features, you don’t hear complain… it’s a subjective thing and depends on the person and his workflow and habits. I always wanted a small, simple, fast, not-stuffed-like-a-pig-with-gazillion-of-options-I’ll-never-use file manager for KDE and now I got one in the form of Dolphin. Of course, there are enough people who dislike it, but Dolphin suits my workflow just perfectly; all I need is an easy and simple graphical way to navigate fast through the directory structure. What good are all those features if I’d never touch them?.. See where I’m going? And this is exactly why arguments like “I didn’t ask for it” are just wrong. What I may need may not be suited for someone else. One way to semi-solve this is to offer choice so the user himself can decide which fits him better, but there’s a (small?) negative effect to too much choice. It’s confusion on the user’s side. So many gazillion of programs to choose from that all try to do the same, so many options, so many this and that, which do I choose?, etc…

But yes, as innovation and development keep progressing, some features get phased out and/or replaced by new ones which may not be something a “habit stuck up user” agrees with and he’ll definitely try to resist change and be vocal about it. The Linux world isn’t known to sit on its butt and wait for all to come. It’s a very fast moving platform where a technology introduced only a few years ago could become obsolete this or the next year (see the case with HAL (Linux’ hardware abstraction) and DeviceKit, both of which are young technologies yet being phased out (and some parts of them merged with) in favor of udev/libudev). In the Linux world, if one wants “trusted” technology that doesn’t change that often compared to community distros, he should look into enterprise Linux solutions. But even enterprise solutions will change at some point, albeit much later. This is inevitable as it’s a requirement for progress/innovation (not all that is “trusted” can be made compatible with future technology and will often need a rewrite or reimplementation to be adapted to future technology/standards)

Actually no, Subjective would only apply if the feature was still there but not still not used by you. The feature not being there at all means it is a objective loss. Many valuable things to others are changed by this. You may have even found in time a feature of the old way was very useful and needed. However you now do not have the opportunity because it is gone.

You mention Dolphin as being better for your usage than Konq. I could almost like Dolphin if it stopped crashing every few times it gets used. However Konq for me as a file manager worked for what I wanted and I knew its interface (Probably only about 1% not being a power user). I never had it crash that I can recall. Now will I adapt to the new ways of Kde 4+, sure, but that does make me blind to its shortcomings.

It would have been interesting if MS had discontinued XP (completely and no updates or bug fixes) with the release of Vista. How would things be today if they had not caved and kept XP around?

Then what is the correct English word to use in such a case? I think you got my point from what I tried to say…

You mention Dolphin as being better for your usage than Konq. I could almost like Dolphin if it stopped crashing every few times it gets used. However Konq for me as a file manager worked for what I wanted and I knew its interface (Probably only about 1% not being a power user). I never had it crash that I can recall. Now will I adapt to the new ways of Kde 4+, sure, but that does make me blind to its shortcomings.

I never had a single crash with Dolphin ever since I stared using it as my primary file manager, back in kde 4.2. But again, this is just my experience and I do note others have issues with it, and it’s not just with Dolphin but with other programs too

It would have been interesting if MS had discontinued XP (completely and no updates or bug fixes) with the release of Vista. How would things be today if they had not caved and kept XP around?

Disastrous probably. Vista was a clear failure example. Even MS publicly acknowledge that Vista was a mess

Wel, it seems that every time I throw a new log on the fire the sparks fly everywhere. Here I go again. :wink:

First I realy like @brucecadieux’s anouncement.

Then I saw somebody asking why I do not stick to 11.1 and KDE 3.5. maybe I should have gone for that, but I am at 10.3 and want a long lifetime cycle for reasons you must now understand.

I can now crossboot between 10.3 and 11.2 using the same /home partition. This brought to me the fact that KDE 4 sees some of the configuration used in KDE 3.5 (and copied it over) and some it doesn’t. God knows what it honours and what not. I have to find out everything. I admit that the fact that I still can use 10.3/KDE 3.5 does not help in pushing me over.

And I am with MattBClassic having the idea that the chrome and fins are more important to nowadays programmers then seeing that needed functionality is there. This seems also to be the case for a lot of users. But I am not in the first place interested in opaque windows and turning cubes because it does not add anything to my production. But it shows how much power we have in the home systems of today. We can afford to waste a lot of it.

If you produce software for the masses, like KDE, there’s no way to make it “the right way”. Many people complained about KDE being so bloated, others liked KDE because there’s configuration and features for just everything. I think KDE 4 in it’s current condition is a kind of compromise. It’s still the most powerful Desktop Environment out there, but it’s more simple than KDE 3.

If I look all over its design it feels like it could be more in “both worlds” than KDE 3, because of its modularity. If you compare KDE 4.0 with 4.3 or 4.4 Beta, then you will see, that it gets more and more features on an extremely fast pace, while still hold some of its simplicity. Even now it is a very good piece of software, but it will get even better.

For complaints about KDE e.V., that they should have stuck to the KDE 3 technology: Consider that they had to move to QT4 and wanted to add some modularity to the next major version. So, if the developers say, that with KDE 3 it would be very hard to do what they wanted to do, we can easily believe them, that a redesign was the correct decision.

Many people said, when KDE 4.0 came out, that it’s a complete desaster and will never be good in any way. Some even would have never believed that it will be that stable and useful as 4.3 is now.

No one can really tell me, that they are very surprised, that the KDE-team will not always stick to KDE 3. Gnome 2 will die, xfce 4 will die, e17 will die, so all other desktop environments will move forward. Windows XP will die, Vista will die, 7 will die. That’s the same with any software version. Especially IT-professionals should stop complaining about and get used to it. Otherwise all of us would still work with Apples Lisa, because “it worked”, or with KDE 1 to stay on topic.

I will not repeat a lot of what I have written above (getting flat fingers).

I am not against a redesign of the inner parts of KDE. From my professional carreer I know very well that after some time a sort of spaghetti structure makes further developement and support of a product impossible. That redesign often has automaticaly the result that the product is faster, better understood better maintainable and better expandable. But this is something completely different from skipping old standing features from the new design just because … I do not know why the removed the colums by lines option from a terminal application.

OTOH as an end-user I (and I also speak for my wife and several friends I lured into using openSUSE) am not even interested in the inner part and if they use QT3/4/5/6/7 or what library for what purpose. I am talking about the results for the end-user. And these are for me in this particular order:

  1. continuity of the functionality (including the user interface);

  2. better performace;

  3. new features;

  4. glittering stars and colours and fireworks for those who can not live without, maybe even I will use a few of them.

And a short remark about the 4.0 was bad, 4.1 is better and maybe 4.4 is as good as 3.5. When that is true the conclusion is clear to me: 3.5 should be there until 4.4 is released.

You know the funny thing with all this… We had all this at the release of KDE 3.0.

People were told only to upgrade if they wanted the latest. I think it was said that how much better 2.5.2 was compared to 3.0 and how “broken” 3.0 was :stuck_out_tongue:

People said pretty much the same thing’s about the change’s in 3.0, a lot even left for Gnome around the same time. Yet 3.0 was not as big a change as the 3.x > 4.x series. KDE 3.5 is still available, it’s just unsupported and unless other’s take up the challenge will not be fixed or patched.

If people don’t want to switch that is by their choice,but when you make a statement saying you don’t care about the backend which is in use all you care about is the UI or “end user experience”, then tbh you have very little to no right at all.

Programmers have to make decisions some of them I’m grateful I am not making, If it was me at KDE making the change’s I think by now I would have offended half the users lol.

You can’t get on a high horse about change, if it wasn’t for the various Linux developers pushing thing’s through we would all still be locked in with MS/Apple.

Change’s happen, you either adapt to them or leave. KDE is not the only DE around. If people don’t like the changes and are unwilling to even attempt to adapt and go with the plans the developer’s have, or offer the developer’s good enough reason for why they shouldn’t change things, Why shouldn’t they change it?

It’s their time and hard work that we get to use. Voicing opinions on a subject is one thing but to belittle the work with arguments that are so one-sided isn’t fair to anyone.

If people feel so strongly about keeping KDE 3.5 it’s all open source, take it, use it and repair it.

I suspect the reason you do not experience crashes of Dolphin, Microchip8, is you tend to use command line. Take for instance you want to change the permissions of a file; do you fire up Dolphin right click and select properties>Permission tab? I expect not. I also expect if you seek to uncompress a downloaded package that you do not click and extract here. How about copy to another place? Do you use Dolphin for large multiple file transfers over a LAN? How about crashes that are caused with drag and drop over a network?

So start doing all your file work in Dolphin for a bit and see if you remain crash free. Incidentally the above is not meant to upset you. Your ways are probably superior for these things. I just treat all tools as a nifty club used to get Cave gals. :slight_smile:

For all KDE 3.5 lovers!
Trinity Desktop Environment - This project aims to keep the KDE3.5 computing style alive, as well as polish off any rough edges that were present as of KDE 3.5.10. Along the way, new useful features will be added to keep the environment up-to-date.
Towards that end, significant new enhancements have already been made in areas such as display control, network connectivity, authentication, and much more!

So please stop whining about the bad KDE4 and how it ruined your life.

Yes, I do use Dolphin to change file permissions (and often too) when I’m working in graphical mode (ie, when I’m moving directories around or when I download, for example, the NV driver which I need to make executable and I do that even if I’m not going to install it directly, or when I make a file intended to be a script which I first make executable and then open it in kwrite to code away). So yes, I do use Dolphin’s file permission settings a lot… When I’m working mostly with CLI, I tend to use the CLI instead

And yes, I also do use “extract here” very often in Dolphin. That’s something I value a lot to have such a service menu to extract compressed files, and I use it very often to compress project directories before I upload them to the build service to package them. Also the service menu to “copy to” and “move to” is very handy to me which I use ALL THE TIME since I download music and movies to my home directory but after a while, I move them over to my portable USB drives and when I need to do this, all I do is just go into the media directory in my home with Dolphin, select all that’s in there, right-click and use the “move to” to move all over to my portable drive. That’s a feature that’s valuable to me in graphical mode and makes things just easy for me (I always wondered why Windows never had such a handy feature in its menu’s). I can do without it though, but it’s just easier for me in graphical mode when it’s there so I tend to use it very often… I have a balanced graphical / CLI habit that I deploy when working with Linux so it’s not all CLI for me :wink: if it’s simpler/easier to do with graphical tools, I tend to prefer them over CLI and the other way around.

The only thing I haven’t used Dolphin is for moving large multiple files over LAN. I used it a few times for FTP transfers, but those were nothing… for FTP, I use FireFTP (firefox plugin) and the CLI and I use one or the other based on whatever I’m working on, ie if I’m currently digging through the CLI and do some work there, it’s faster for me to just stay in the CLI and use ftp from there. When I’m mostly browsing the web and/or doing work on there using firefox, I tend to prefer FireFTP instead as it’s just a click away

So yes, everything you asked me about “just works™” for me with Dolphin and never had issues with it, be it crashing ones or other. The only thing I can’t comment about since I haven’t used it is about moving large files over LAN using Dolphin.

I’m glad to see someone has actually taken this up. There’s been talk here and there for a couple of years, but it’s always fizzled. Now we’ll see what kind of support they get! :slight_smile:

Yes, that’s good, that’s how open source is supposed to work.